Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
com
Invited Review
Abstract
The supply chain of agricultural products has received a great deal of attention lately due to issues related to public health. Something that
has become apparent is that in the near future the design and operation of agricultural supply chains will be subject to more stringent
regulations and closer monitoring, in particular those for products destined for human consumption (agri-foods). This implies that the
traditional supply chain practices may be subject to revision and change. One of the aspects that may be the subject of considerable scrutiny is
the planning activities performed along the supply chains of agricultural products. In this paper, we review the main contributions in the field
of production and distribution planning for agri-foods based on agricultural crops. We focus particularly on those models that have been
successfully implemented. The models are classified according to relevant features, such as the optimization approaches used, the type of
crops modeled and the scope of the plans, among many others. Through our analysis of the current state of the research, we diagnose some
of the future requirements for modeling the supply chain of agri-foods.
2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keyword: OR in agriculture
0377-2217/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.02.014
2 O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20
The papers not fitting exactly one of these categories
that bring agricultural or horticultural products (Aramyan appear in more than one group or, for those papers not fit-
et al., 2006) from the farm to the table. ASC are formed by ting any of the categories; they are grouped in a special cat-
the organizations responsible for production (farmers), dis- egory presented at the end of the classification.
tribution, processing, and marketing of agricultural prod-
ucts to the final consumers. 1.1. Scope of the review
The supply chain of agri-foods, as any other supply
chain, is a network of organizations working together in We are aware of at least three previous literature reviews
different processes and activities in order to bring products in areas related to the topic of planning models of agricul-
and services to the market, with the purpose of satisfying tural supply chains; the earliest was performed by Glen
customers demands (Christopher, 2005). What differenti- (1987), and the latest by Lowe and Preckel (2004). Glen
ates ASC from other supply chains is the importance performed an exhaustive search of the literature (previous
played by factors such as food quality and safety, and to the year of 1985) covering crop and livestock production
weather related variability (Salin, 1998). Other relevant models. The review by Lowe and Preckel focused on the
characteristics of agri-foods include their limited shelf life, main modeling approaches used in crop planning in the
their demand and price variability, which makes the under- context of agribusiness. Their review included some of
lying supply chain more complex and harder to manage the relevant papers covered in Glen (1987), but also some
than other supply chains. papers that were published after Glens review. Although
This paper gives an assessment of the state of the art in Lowe and Preckels review is not extensive, it highlights
the area of planning models for the different components of some potential areas for future research in the area.
agri-food supply chains. Fig. 1 presents the factors used to Another review that focused on the topic of location anal-
dissect and organize this review. For instance, from the ysis applied to agriculture was compiled by Lucas and
perspective of storability of the products, we make the Chhajed (2004). This review covers applications related
distinction between those papers whose main focus is on to location of warehouses and processing plants from the
perishable products from those that focus mostly on non- year 1826 to the year 2000. In their paper, Lucas and
perishable products. From the perspective of the scope; Chhajed recognized the complexity and challenges of stra-
we divide the papers into strategic, tactical, and opera- tegic production-distribution models applied to the agri-
tional planning. From the perspective of modeling uncer- cultural industry, and the need to consider uncertainty in
tainty, we divide the papers into deterministic and the planning models. These authors also emphasize the
stochastic. In a second level of the classification, we make emerging use of these models by large corporations.
a further categorization using the particularities of the Our intention in this paper is to complement and expand
modeling approaches used. For instance, we divide the the previous works by identifying the works that either
deterministic models into those based on linear program- were not covered or were published after these reviews.
ming, dynamic programming, etc. We also divide the Another objective is to frame the literature in the context
papers using stochastic modeling approaches into stochas- of supply chain planning. In this paper we take a similar
tic programming and stochastic dynamic programming. approach to that of Lowe and Preckels by focusing on
those papers aimed at the production and distribution of
crops. We also aim to perform an extensive search of those
Scope
papers that have been published from the year 1985, the
year of Glens review, to the present. As it was the case
in the previous reviews, we do not cover macroeconomic
Strategic Tactical Operational models designed to plan crop production for entire regions
or countries; instead we focus on those models targeted to
be used by a single user, which may be a farmer or a com-
pany. The underlying reason for this approach is to look at
Reviewed Models the ASC planning problem from the perspective of the indi-
vidual farmers, or group of farmers, facing an increasingly
integrated and more complex production-distribution sys-
tem. Most of the models addressed in this review come
LP DP SDP SP
from journals in the agricultural sciences, supply chain,
and operations research literature.
3.1. Scope of decision-making in supply chain planning From a modeling perspective, the models for supply
chain planning can be classified as deterministic or stochas-
Planning in supply chain of agri-foods usually involves tic, according to the certainty of the value of the parame-
several levels of hierarchical decisions. These decisions ters used (Min and Zhou, 2002). We further refine this
can be classified as strategic, tactical or operational, classification according to the main mathematical tech-
depending on their effects to the overall supply chain (Sim- niques used for finding solutions to these models. In those
chi-Levi, 2003; Chopra and Meindl, 2003). In the present cases where all of the models parameters are assumed
research we review those supply chain planning models deterministic, the researchers have traditionally used
focused on strategic, tactical, and operational decision for approaches such as linear programming (LP), dynamic
the agri-food supply chain. We place special attention to programming (DP), mixed integer programming (MIP),
those models dealing with coordination of tactical deci- and goal programming (GP). Otherwise, stochastic model-
sions such as production and distribution. ing approaches are used, these include stochastic program-
ming (SP), stochastic dynamic programming (SDP),
3.2. Decisions in supply chain planning simulation (SIM), risk programming (RP).
We are aware of alternative modeling approaches for
Planning is an activity that supports decision-making by modeling agri-food related activities, which we do not
identifying potential alternatives and making the best deci- cover in the present review. In general these approaches
sions according to the objectives of planners (Fleischmann are not as commonly used for applications in the ASC,
et al., 2005). Supply chain planning (SCP) is comprised, at but there are applications in related areas of agricultural
the highest level, of three main decision-making functional research in which these modeling approaches are useful.
processes: production planning, inventory control and One example is the use of multi-objective and multi-criteria
physical distribution (Beamon, 1998). Fleischmann et al. decision-making models, which have been applied to sub-
(2005) divides the supply chain activities into four func- sistence farms and agricultural policy planning. The inter-
tional areas: procurement, production, distribution and ested reader in multi-criteria decision-making is referred
sales. These functional areas play an important part in to the work of Hayashi (2000), who presents a comprehen-
the architecture of advanced planning systems for commer- sive list of articles on the topic of multi-criteria agricultural
cial packages (Stadler, 2005). Although these tasks have decision making. Another example is the use of models to
traditionally been modeled independently, there is a con- predict plant growth and the timing of their maturity,
sensus in the supply chain literature that two or more of which have been applied to estimate production yield as
these processes should be modeled together for improving a function of time. For a detailed description of these mod-
the overall supply chain performance (Chandra and Fisher, els the reader is advised to consult the reviews by Marcelis
1994). et al. (1998) and van Ittersum et al. (2003).
In the context of the ASC, we have identified four main
functional areas: production, harvest, storage, and distri- 4. Planning models for ASC of non-perishable products
bution. Decisions made in production include those related
to cropping, such as the land to allocate to each crop, tim- In this section we present those works dealing with mod-
ing of sowing, and the determination of resources required els for the planning of activities in the supply chain of non-
for growing the crops. During harvest, some of the deci- perishable agri-foods. The complete list of the research
sions that need to be made include the timing for collecting papers covered is presented in Table 1. This table presents
the crops from the fields and the determination of the level the leading authors and the publication year of the paper.
of resources needed to perform this activity. Some other The second column gives a brief description of the papers
decisions made at harvest include the scheduling of equip- and their main objective(s). In the remainder of this section
ment, labor, and transportation equipment. Sometimes we classify these papers according to their planning scope,
these decisions also involve the scheduling of the packing the functional nature of the decisions being modeled and the
or processing plant. The third function is storage, which modeling approaches used. In order to better illustrate
includes the inventory control of the agri-foods, which is the different classifications we briefly describe one or more
required when the products need to be stored before or
O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20 5
Table 1
List of models non-perishable agricultural products
Model Main objective of the paper
Torkamani (2005) Evaluate prospective technology options using SP with the aim of maximizing the farmers utility (exponential utility
maximizing objective)
Kobzar et al. (2005) Develop a RP model for capturing joint stochastic distributions (parametric and non-parametric) using a mean-variance
objective function
Apaiah and Hendrix Design a supply chain network for growing, harvesting, transporting and processing of a pea-based product using a MIP that
(2005) minimizes total cost
Jiao et al. (2005) Develop a harvest schedule for a sugar cane farms using a LP model that maximizes the sugar content in the crops for a
harvest season
Biswas and Pal (2005) Plan seasonal crops within a year, using a fuzzy program with the objective of increasing utilization of land, labor,
production and profits
Visagie et al. (2004) Determine farm planning strategies (crop and livestock) with a MIP that maximize the profit earned, given the level of risk
selected
Jones et al. (2003) Design a plan for planting decisions for a two period SP problem for a corn seed producer with variable yield with the
objective of reducing cost
Recio et al. (2003) Develop a farm plan that includes scheduling field tasks and analyzing investments with the objective of minimizing costs
using a MIP model
Vitoriano et al. (2003) Prepare a plan for cropping tasks with a LP, satisfying precedence and time window constraints with the objective of
minimizing costs
Higgins (2002) Schedule the roster for harvest of a sugar cane region using MIP with the objective of reducing costs in transportation and in
the processing plant
Maatman et al. (2002) Develop a SP model for planning production and consumption of a farmer for a given rainfall, with the objective of
minimizing shortages
Gigler et al. (2002) Design a DP model for planning the decisions of multi-echelons agri-chains, to satisfy demand at the minimum total chain
cost
Glen and Tipper (2001) Plan the introduction of improved cultivation systems using a MIP model for semi-subsistence farmers with the purpose of
increasing discounted return
Lien and Hardaker (2001) Analyze the farmers response to different type of subsidies in whole-farm, and their attitude towards risk through a SP with
utility maximizing objective
Ekman (2000) Determine the best combination of equipment and crop mix with the objective of maximizing revenue using a SP model
Schilizzi and Kingwell Estimate the impact of price and yield uncertainty on the introduction of crops using SP, with the objective of maximizing
(1999) expected utility of a farmer
Raju and Kumar (1999) Plan irrigation and production tasks with a LP model to find the best compromise between net benefits, agricultural
production and labor employed
Higgins et al. (1998) Schedule harvesting and replanting operations with a LP model, considering available processing capacity with the objective
of maximize net revenue
Abdulkadri and Ajibefun Generate crop plan alternatives that are close to the optimal decisions for farmers with different objectives and using a LP
(1998) model
Sumanatra and Ramirez Develop a plan for multi-crop water allocation and intra-seasonal stochastic irrigation scheduling using DP and SDP models
(1997) to maximize revenues
Lazzari and Mazzetto Develop of a model for selecting and scheduling the machinery for a multicrop farm using search techniques for minimizing
(1996) the cost
Torkamani and Hardaker Design a utility efficient non-linear SP model used for analyzing the economic efficiency of farmers with several utility
(1996) maximizing functions
Burton et al. (1996) Determine the production policy of double cropping and crop rotations with a MOTAD objective (maximizing revenue and
minimizing low returns)
Nevo et al. (1994) Design a crop plan with an expert systems and a LP model with the objective of maximizing profits
Duffy and Taylor (1993) Analyze long-term farm planning decisions under provisions of 1990 farm bill using a SDP model with the objective of
maximizing expected present value
Kaiser et al. (1993) Determine the potential impact of climate change using a SP model that maximizes revenue under different simulated
scenarios
Dobbins et al. (1992) Develop a LP model for planning the production, harvest, storage and marketing of crops and livestock, with the objective of
maximizing revenue
Adesina and Sanders Design a SP model applied to a sequential decision-making under weather uncertainty for selecting cereal technologies that
(1991) maximize profits
Nanseki and Morooka Evaluate economic performance of farmers using a SP model with 3 risk preferences (max utility, max probability and
(1991) chance constraint)
Alocilja and Ritchie (1990) Develop a simulation tool for maximizing profit and minimizing yield risk, by planning sowing date, fertilizer treatment and
plant population
Turvey and Baker (1990) Determine the relation of farm programs to the farmers hedging decisions with futures and options. By using SP with utility
maximizing objective
Bin Deris and Ohta (1990) Develop a production system that minimizes machine demand in a two-stage cost minimizing application using LP and DP
Perry et al. (1989) Design a multi-period MIP model to identify the participation in government programs and crop mix with the objective of
maximizing net present value
(continued on next page)
6 O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20
Table 1 (continued)
Model Main objective of the paper
Clarke (1989) Determine the cropping pattern that maximizes the return from the farm, applied to a farm in Bangladesh using a LP model
Kaiser and Apland Determine production and marketing plans for two crops using a SP model with the objective of maximizing profit and reduce
(1989) profit deviation
Lambert and McCarl Develop a discrete SP for selecting among marketing alternatives with the objective of maximizing revenues
(1989)
Turvey et al. (1988) Design a RP model for providing useful alternatives to the variance-covariance quadratic programming method
Tan and Fong (1988) Determine cropping decisions for a perennial crops, with the objective of maximizing revenue with MOTAD and using a LP
model
Glen (1986) Design a plan for an integrated crop and beef production with internal production of feed stuff, using a LP model for
maximizing revenue
El-Nazer and McCarl Develop a LP model to design and determine the optimal long-run rotation of crops with the objective of maximizing revenue
(1986) with risk aversion
Butterworth (1985) Develop a MIP model for whole farm plan with crop, livestock and labor decisions with the objective of maximizing revenues
Stoecker et al. (1985) Design of an application of LP and DP models for determining production, irrigation, drilling and water distribution decisions
for maximizing revenues
Table 2
Planning scope and decision variables for non-perishable agricultural products
Model Planning scope Decision variables
S T O A DM P H D I SCM Other decisions considered
Torkamani (2005) X X Y/N Advisor X 1 Labor and financial
Kobzar et al. (2005) X Y/N Planner X 1 Risk reduction
Apaiah and Hendrix (2005) X X N SC X X X 3 Production at plant
Jiao et al. (2005) X Y/Y Planner X 1
Biswas and Pal (2005) X Y/N Advisor X 1
Visagie et al. (2004) X X Y/N Farmer X 1 Livestock planning
Jones et al. (2003) X Y/Y Planner X 1
Recio et al. (2003) X X Y/Y Advisor X 1 Scheduling of activities
Vitoriano et al. (2003) X X N Planner X 1 Modeling approach
Higgins (2002) X Y/Y Planner X 1 Reduce variability at plant
Maatman et al. (2002) X Y/Y Advisor X X 1 Consumption and purchase
Gigler et al. (2002) X N SC X X X X 3
Glen and Tipper (2001) X X Y/N Advisor X 1 Selection fallow system
Lien and Hardaker (2001) X N Planner X 1 Subsidies, labor
Ekman (2000) X Y/N Farmer X 1 Equipment investment and tilling schedule
Schilizzi and Kingwell (1999) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Crop rotations
Raju and Kumar (1999) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Planning of irrigation, labor
Higgins et al. (1998) X X Y/N Planner X 1 Replanting decisions
Abdulkadri and Ajibefun (1998) X Y/N Farmer X 1 Generate alternative plans
Sumanatra and Ramirez (1997) X X Y/N Advisor X 1 Irrigation scheduling
Lazzari and Mazzetto (1996) X Y/N Advisor 1 Equipment sizing/scheduling
Torkamani and Hardaker (1996) X Y/N Planner X 1 Utility functions
Burton et al. (1996) X X N Advisor X 1 Crop rotations and labor
Nevo et al. (1994) X N Farmer X 1
Duffy and Taylor (1993) X X N Planner X 1 Participation on program
Kaiser et al. (1993) X X N Farmer X X 1 Tilling schedule
Dobbins et al. (1992) X X Y/Y Advisor X X 1 Activities schedule
Adesina and Sanders (1991) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Purchasing and consumption
Nanseki and Morooka (1991) X Y/N Planner X 1 Labor requirements
Alocilja and Ritchie (1990) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Sowing date and fertilizer use
Turvey and Baker (1990) X X Y/N Planner X 1 Financial and hedging
Bin Deris and Ohta (1990) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Scheduling of machines
Perry et al. (1989) X X Y/N Farmer X 1 Program participation
Clarke (1989) X N Advisor X 1 Crop selection and rotation
Kaiser and Apland (1989) X Y/N Farmer X X X 1 Tillage and marketing
Lambert and McCarl (1989) X Y/N Advisor X X 1 Utility function
Turvey et al. (1988) X Y/N Advisor X 1
Tan and Fong (1988) X Y/N Planner X 1 Assign crops to soil type
Glen (1986) X Y/N Advisor X X 1 Livestock decisions
El-Nazer and McCarl (1986) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Design of crop rotations
Butterworth (1985) X Y/N Advisor X 1 Livestock an labor
Stoecker et al. (1985) X X Y/N Farmer X 1 Irrigation and aquifer
S: strategic, P: production variables/decisions, T: tactical, H: harvesting variables/decisions, O: operational, D: distribution variables/decisions, A:
application of the models, I: inventory variables/decisions, DM: decision maker for which the model is designed, SCM: echelons of the supply chain.
Table 3
Modeling approaches used for planning non-perishable agricultural products
Model LP SP DP SDP MIP Other aspects
Torkamani (2005) X Nonlinear SP
Kobzar et al. (2005) X Risk programming
Apaiah and Hendrix (2005) X
Jiao et al. (2005) X Regression analysis
Biswas and Pal (2005) Fuzzy goal programming
Visagie et al. (2004) X Risk programming
Jones et al. (2003) X
Recio et al. (2003) X Decision support systems
Vitoriano et al. (2003) X X
Higgins (2002) X Tabu search
Maatman et al. (2002) X
Gigler et al. (2002) X
Glen and Tipper (2001) X X
Lien and Hardaker (2001) X Time series
Ekman (2000) X
Schilizzi and Kingwell (1999) X
Raju and Kumar (1999) X MCDM and constraint prog.
Higgins et al. (1998) X
Abdulkadri and Ajibefun (1998) X Modeling to generate alternatives
Sumanatra and Ramirez (1997) X X
Lazzari and Mazzetto (1996) Search methods
Torkamani and Hardaker (1996) X
Burton et al. (1996) X
Nevo et al. (1994) X Expert systems
Duffy and Taylor (1993) X Time series
Kaiser et al. (1993) X Simulation and time series
Dobbins et al. (1992) X
Adesina and Sanders (1991) X
Nanseki and Morooka (1991) X
Alocilja and Ritchie (1990) Simulation
Turvey and Baker (1990) X Utility functions
Bin Deris and Ohta (1990) X X
Perry et al. (1989) X
Clarke (1989) X
Kaiser and Apland (1989) X Time series and regression
Lambert and McCarl (1989) X Time series and regression
Turvey et al. (1988) X Risk programming
Tan and Fong (1988) X Multiple objectives and MOTAD
Glen (1986) X X
El-Nazer and McCarl (1986) X MOTAD
Butterworth (1985) X
Stoecker et al. (1985) X X
Table 4
List of models for fresh agricultural products
Table 5
Planning scope and decision variables for fresh agricultural products
Model Planning scope Decision variables
S T O SL A DM P H D I SCM Other decisions considered
Ferrer et al. (2008) X X X Y/N Planner X 1 Labor and routing
Widodo et al. (2006) X X X N SC X X 2
Caixeta-Filho (2006) X Y/N Planner X 2
Kazaz (2004) X X Y/N Planner X X 1 Purchase from other source
Allen and Schuster (2004) X Y/Y Planner X X 1 Capacity planning
Rantala (2004) X X Y/N SC X X X 2 Open/close facilities
Itoh et al. (2003) X N Farmer X 1
Caixeta-Filho et al. (2002) X X Y/Y Farmer X X 1
Berge ten et al. (2000) X X Y/N Advisor X 1 Technology selection
Darby-Dowman et al. (2000) X Y/N Farmer X X 1 Capacity decisions
Romero (2000) X N Planner X 1
Leutscher et al. (1999) X X N Farmer X 1 Operational policies
Stokes et al. (1997) X Y/N Farmer X 1 Selling or retain
Aleotti et al. (1997) X X Y/N Farmer X X X 1 Preservation technology
Miller et al. (1997) X Y/N Planner X X 1
Hamer (1994) X Y/N Farmer X 1 Variety selection
Purcell et al. (1993) X Y/N Advisor X 1
van Berlo (1993) X X Y/N Farmer X X X 2 Processing schedule
Annevelink (1992) X N Farmer X 1 Spatial location
Saedt et al. (1991) X X Y/Y Farmer 1 Transition planning
S: strategic, P: production variables/decisions, T: tactical, H: harvesting variables/decisions, O: operational, D: distribution variables/decisions, A:
application of the models, I: inventory variables/decisions, DM: decision maker for which the model is designed, SCM: echelons of the supply chain.
Table 6
Modeling approaches used for planning fresh agricultural products
Model LP SP DP SDP MIP Other aspects
Ferrer et al. (2008) X X Relaxation heuristic
Widodo et al. (2006) X Growth and loss functions
Caixeta-Filho (2006) X
Kazaz (2004) X Nonlinear optimization
Allen and Schuster (2004) Nonlinear optimization
Rantala (2004) X X
Itoh et al. (2003) X Fuzzy programming
Caixeta-Filho et al. (2002) X
Berge ten et al. (2000) X Multi-objective programming
Darby-Dowman et al. (2000) X
Romero (2000) X Risk programming
Leutscher et al. (1999) X Simulation and regression
Stokes et al. (1997) X
Aleotti et al. (1997) X X
Miller et al. (1997) X Fuzzy programming
Hamer (1994) X Decision support system
Purcell et al. (1993) X Risk programming
van Berlo (1993) X Goal programming
Annevelink (1992) X Genetic algorithm
Saedt et al. (1991) X
Table 7
Other agricultural supply chains planning models
Model Main objective of the paper
Schepers and van Kooten Plan the value chain of fresh fruits (producer, trader and retailer) using systems dynamics with the objective of maximizing
(2006) total revenue
Higgins and Laredo (2006) Develop an IP model for harvesting and transporting crops, together with the rationalization of railroads with the objective
of minimizing total cost
Higgins et al. (2004) Develop a framework for integrating harvesting and transportation decisions in the Australian sugar value chain to
minimize costs
Higgins (1999) Schedule harvest date and crop cycle, considering transportation and capacity restrictions using an IP model that maximizes
the net revenue
Tijskens and Polderdijk Develop a model for estimating the quality of harvested products affected by temperature, chilling injury, and different levels
(1996) of initial quality
Porteus (1993b) Plan the use of new technologies, demand management, and sensitivity analysis to improve the performance of a cranberry
packing plant
Porteus (1993a) Develop a tactical plan for capacity and staffing decisions for improving the efficiency of a cranberry packing plant using
queuing models
size and the timing of the crops to sell. The risks faced
tions. They use a DP model to deal with periodical harvests by the producers include cost, and yield uncertainty. These
subject to periodical flowering for maximizing the level of risks are assumed to be reflected in the stochastic behavior of
demand coverage per period. The objective is the minimiza- the prices obtained.
tion of the loss caused by premature harvesting, and the
loss from transporting and storing products at the retailers 6. Other related models
site. The main decision variable is the amount of product to
be harvested at each harvesting period. As part of the literature review, we found other papers
Stokes et al. (1997) presents an SDP model for manag- that although related to agricultural planning, do not
ing a nursery, with two interesting features, the consider- directly fit the classification scheme used in this paper.
ation of after-tax profits and the uncertainty of profit. Table 7 presents a list of these papers with the intention of
The problem is to arrive to an optimal marketing and pro- informing the interested reader of additional contribu-
duction plan for a nursery that produces ornamental tions in the planning of ASC.
plants. The nursery considered, produces different sizes of
crops. The crops increase their value with growth, but this 7. Conclusions
growth also results in higher operating costs. The states of
the model are the production area dedicated to each type of Different conclusions can be drawn from the previous
crop, a possible carry-over loss, and the net income review. One is that the use of integrated planning models
obtained. The decisions include the determination of the
16 O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20
in the handling of fresh products will undoubtedly create
in the ASC is still very limited. While we believe that these the need for improving the current supply chain planning
models would be useful in the modeling of all the agri-food practices. Judging from the publication trends, we believe
products, they would be particularly useful for perishable that this need is already being reflected in the papers
crops. Although integrated models are inherently more reviewed and we expect that the research activity in the
complex, than those dealing with a single planning aspects, area will increase significantly in the near future.
the potential benefits of these models usually outweigh the
added complexity. This is particularly true in planning the 8. Identification of gaps in the literature and call for research
coordination of production and distribution activities for
large and medium size companies (Boehlje, 1999). The need In closing, we would like to give an assessment of the
for integrated models is reinforced by Perosio et al. (2001) gaps in the existing literature on planning models of the
who recognize the increasing importance of grower/ship- ASC. In order to identify these gaps we take two different
pers who are in charge of not only producing the crops approaches. The first approach is to compare and contrast
but also of their distribution. The importance of these the existing research and research trends in planning mod-
growers in the ASC is expected to expand as more retailers els for ASC to those related planning activities within the
and processors continue to buy directly from producers, manufacturing supply chains, a sector considerably more
bypassing the traditional wholesalers and intermediaries research-mature than that of ASC. The second approach
(Kaufman et al., 2000). For these growers the use of inte- is to assess the future needs of the industry based on pro-
grated models to better plan their activities might represent jecting the current trends of the industry into the future.
substantial savings and increased efficiencies. Regarding the first approach, we believe that the state of
A second finding that can be drawn from the reviewed the art in models for planning ASC are still lagging behind
papers is that planning models dealing with perishable the research aimed at some manufacturing supply chains,
products very often fail to incorporate realistic stochastic, such as electronics and automotive manufacturing.
and shelf life features present in the different echelons of Researchers in manufacturing supply chains are currently
the supply chain. Perhaps the reason for this lack of more developing models for designing supply chain networks
realistic scenarios is the added complexity of finding solu- for local and international markets (Goetschalckx et al.,
tions for the resulting models. In the few cases that real- 2002; Meixell and Gargeya, 2005), coordinating the activi-
ity-based stochastic features were introduced into the ties of companies in the supply chain (Sarmiento and Nagi,
models the results justified the added complexity of the 1999; Thomas and Griffin, 1996), planning transportation
model (Jones et al., 2003; Allen and Schuster, 2004). Most operations and developing information management sys-
troubling is the lack of shelf life features in the majority of tems (Stadler and Kilger, 2005; Helo and Szekely, 2005).
the models developed for planning perishables agri-foods, Of particular relevance is the research on supply chain
since these features are essential for maintaining the quality coordination, which identifies the activities and polices to
and freshness of perishable products. be pursued by the different supply chain participants to
We also found that there are a limited number of models obtain the maximum benefit of the entire supply chain
dealing with operational planning. This paucity of applica- (Kouvelis et al., 2006; Chen and Paulraj, 2004). Evidence
tions is evident in the case of integrated models that aim at of these coordination-needs in ASC, is the development
planning more than one aspect of the ASC. Given the thin of programs such as efficient consumer response and other
profit margins observed by the producers, efficient opera- supply chain coordination initiatives that have been cham-
tional planning could make the difference between a suc- pioned by retailers. Among the preferred tools for supply
cessful and an unprofitable operation. The relevance of chain coordination, has been the use of contracts, which
operational models is even more accentuated in the case includes policies for buying, selling, delivering, and pricing
of perishable crops because of the critical impact of their of products. Similar contracting arrangements have also
limited shelf life on harvesting and transportation been gaining popularity in ASC, but still there is a need
decisions. to research their design and effects for the particular char-
Finally, judging by the numbers of published papers, we acteristics of the agricultural markets (MacDonald et al.,
concluded that the focus of agricultural planning has been 2004). Other areas of expertise in manufacturing supply
mostly on non-perishable products. However, we also chains are internal logistics, which include the activities
detected a change in this trend since most of the papers within a single firm that are necessary for the efficient flow
aimed at perishable products have been developed in the of services and goods (CLM, 2006). An evident gap is the
last six years. Perhaps the lack of research on perishable lack of models applied to the distribution of perishable
products was due to the perceived less importance of these products, such as those developed in the inventory litera-
crops over the traditional or program crops such wheat, ture (Goyal and Giri, 2001).
corn and cotton. However, there is a new reality since the Regarding the identification of future needs based on
current markets for fresh products are very dynamic and industry trends, we can mention the industry consolidation
even evolving faster than traditional crops (Huang and and the vertical integration of the supply chains. The con-
Sophia, 2004). The ever increasing demand of consumers solidation of the agri-food industry has evolved from the
for healthy products and the more stringent regulations
O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20 17
and Technology (CONACYT) for their support for the
need for economies of scale, strategic positioning, risk man- realization of this research.
agement and market control (Boehlje, 1999). On the other
hand, vertical integration has been motivated by a host of References
technological, regulatory and financial reasons, in addition
to changes in consumer preferences, such as increased Abdulkadri, A., Ajibefun, I.A., 1998. Developing alternative farm plans for
quality and product safety (Hobbs and Young, 2000). These cropping systems decision-making. Agricultural Systems 56 (4), 431-442.
trends have motivated new initiatives in ASC, such as Adesina, A.A., Sanders, J.H., 1991. Peasant farmer behavior and cereal
traceability, quality certifications, food safety, and quick technologies: Stochastic programming analysis in Niger. Agricultural
Economics 5, 21-38.
response just to name a few of the latest developments in Aleotti, L.O., Araujo, R., Yahya, R., 1997. Selection of postharvest
the industry (Bourlakis and Weightman, 2004). Some of technology routes by mixed-integer linear programming. International
these trends and efforts sometimes are lumped together Journal of Production Economics 49, 85-90.
under the term Agroindustrialization of Operations. This Allen, S.J., Schuster, E.W., 2004. Controlling the risk for an agricultural
indicates that there are now more similarities between harvest. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 6 (3), 225-
236.
manufacturing supply chains and ASC than ever before Alocilja, E.C., Ritchie, J.T., 1990. The application of SIMOPT2: Rice to
(Reardon and Barret, 2000). In response to these challenges evaluate profit and yield-risk in upland-rice production. Agricultural
some potential innovations can be identified. For instance, Systems 33, 315-326.
we believe that there is a need for models that include more Annevelink, E., 1992. Operational planning in horticulture: Optimal space
realistic features, such as uncertain information, logistics allocation in pot-plant nurseries using heuristic techniques. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research 51, 167-177.
integration, risk modeling, regulatory environment, quality Apaiah, R.K., Hendrix, E.M.T., 2005. Design of supply chain network for
and security of products. In particular, we have identified a pea-based novel protein foods. Journal of Food Engineering 70, 383-
the need for stochastic models for the tactical planning of 391.
perishable and non-perishable agri-foods. Stochastic mod- Aramyan, C., Ondersteijn, O., van Kooten, O., Lansink, A.O., 2006.
els can be used to plan the production of crops, and to make Performance indicators in agri-food production chains. In: Quantify-
ing the Agri-Food Supply Chain. Springer, Netherlands (Chapter 5),
these plans robust to uncertainty. We envision the extension pp. 49-66.
of these models to incorporate other risk reduction alterna- Backus, G.B.C., Eidman, V.R., Dijkhuizen, A.A., 1997. Farm decision
tives, such as the use of contracts, financial and real options under risk and uncertainty. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural
as diversification strategies. Such models can aid the grow- Science 45, 307-328.
ers to make more holistic decisions, in terms of risk and Beamon, B.M., 1998. Supply chain design and analysis: Models and
methods. International Journal of Production Economics 55, 281-294.
expected revenues. Although some of these risk reduction Berge ten, H.F.M., van Ittersum, M.K., Rossing, W.A.H., van de Ven,
issues have been modeled in the past, they have not consid- G.W.J., Schans, J., van de Sanden, P.A.C.M., 2000. Farming options
ered market, production, distribution and the uncertainty for the Netherlands explored by multi-objective modeling. European
of the models parameters. Journal of Agronomy 13, 263-277.
Other potential contributions include operational mod- Biere, A., 2001. Agribusiness Logistics: An Emerging Field in Agribusi-
ness Education, International Food and Agribusiness Management
els which integrate production and distribution decisions. Association, Agribusiness Forum and Symposium, Sydney, Australia,
The need for such logistical models has promoted the emer- <http://www.ifama.org/conferences/2001Conference/Papers/
gence of the field of Agribusiness Logistics, which studies Area%20I/Biere_Arlo.PDF>.
the impact of logistical issues in ASC (Biere, 2001). The Bin Deris, S., Ohta, H., 1990. A machine-scheduling model for large-scale
importance of Agricultural Logistics issues is particularly rice production in Malaysia. Journal of the Operational Research
Society 41 (8), 713-723.
evident in the case of perishable products where the limited Biswas, A., Pal, B.B., 2005. Application of fuzzy goal programming
shelf life of the product requires a very careful planning of technique to land use planning in agricultural systems. Omega 33, 391-
the transportation and inventory decisions to reduce the 398.
deterioration of the products and preserve their value. In Boehlje, M., 1999. Structural changes in the agricultural industries: How
our opinion, there is a particularly a conspicuous lack of do we measure, analyze and understand them? American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 81 (5), 108-1041.
adequate models for planning operational decisions for Boehlje, M., Fulton, J., Gray, A., Nilsson, T., 2003. Strategic Issues in the
production/harvest and distribution for perishable crops. Changing Agricultural Industry, Purdue University, Department of
The development of these models is an immediate need Agricultural Economics, CES-341.
not only for the benefit of industry but also for the benefit Bourlakis, M.A., Weightman, P.W.H., 2004. Food Supply Chain Man-
of the final consumer. agement. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
Burton, R.O., Crisostomo, M.F., Berends, P.T., Kelley, K.W., Buller,
O.H., 1996. Risk/return analysis of double-cropping and alternative
crop rotations with and without government programs. Review of
Acknowledgements Agricultural Economics 18, 681-696.
Butterworth, K., 1985. Practical application of linear/integer program-
The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous ming in agriculture. Journal of the Operational Research Society 36
(2),99-107.
reviewers of this paper whose input significantly improved Caixeta-Filho, J.V., van Swaay-Neto, J.M., Wagemaker, A.P., 2002.
its quality. We also would like to acknowledge the Confed- Optimization of the production planning and trade of lily flowers at
eration of Associations of Growers in the State of Sinaloa Jan de Wit Company. Interfaces 32 (1), 35-46.
(CAADES) and Mexicos National Council for Science
18 O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20
Hayashi, K., 2000. Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource man-
Caixeta-Filho, J.V., 2006. Orange harvesting scheduling management: A agement: A critical survey and future perspectives. European Journal of
case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (6), 637- Operational Research 122, 486-500.
642. Hazell, P.B.R., Norton, R.D., 1986. Mathematical Programming for
Chandra, P., Fisher, M.L., 1994. Coordination of production and Economic Analysis in Agriculture. Macmillan Publishing Company,
distribution planning. European Journal of Operational Research 72, New York, NY.
503-517. Helo, P., Szekely, B., 2005. Logistics information systems: An analysis of
Chen, I.J., Paulraj, A., 2004. Understanding supply chain management; software solutions for supply chain co-ordination. Industrial Manage-
critical research and theoretical framework. International Journal of ment & Data systems 105, 5.
Production Research 42 (1), 131-163. Higgins, A.J., 1999. Optimizing cane supply decisions within a sugar mill
Chopra, S., Meindl, P., 2003. Supply Chain Management: Strategy, region. Journal of Scheduling 2, 229-244.
Planning and Operation. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle Higgins, A.J., 2002. Australian sugar mills optimize harvester roster to
River, New Jersey. improve production. Interfaces 32 (3), 15-26.
Christopher, M., 2005. Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Prentice Higgins, A.J., Laredo, L.A., 2006. Improving harvesting and transport
Hall, London. planning within a sugar value chain. Journal of the operational
Clarke, H.R., 1989. Combinatorial aspects of cropping pattern selection in Research society 57, 367-376.
agriculture. European Journal of Operational Research 40, 70-77. Higgins, A.J., Muchow, R.C., Rudd, A.V., Ford, A.W., 1998. Optimising
Council of Logistics Management (CLM), 2006. <http://www.clm1.org>, harvest date in sugar production: A case study for the Mossman mill
Consulted on November. region in Australia. Field Crops Research 57, 153-162.
Darby-Dowman, K., Barker, S., Audsley, E., Parsons, D., 2000. A two- Higgins, A., Thorburn, P., Archer, A., Jakku, E., 2007. Opportunities for
stage stochastic programming robust planting plans in horticulture. value chain research in sugar industries. Agricultural Systems 94, 611-
Journal of the Operational Research Society 51, 83-89. 621.
Dent, J.B., Harrison, S.R., Woodford, K.B., 1986. Farm Planning with Higgins, A., Antony, G., Sandell, G., Davies, I., Prestwidge, D., Andrew, B.,
Linear Programming: Concept and Practice. Butterworths. 2004. A framework for integrating a complex harvesting and transport
Dobbins, C.L., Preckel, P.V., Han, Y., Doster, D.H., 1992. An application system for sugar production. Agricultural Systems 82, 99-115.
of linear programming to planning crop systems. In: Proceedings of Hobbs, J.E., Young, L.M., 2000. Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-
fourth International Conference on computers in Agricultural Exten- food supply chains: A conceptual framework and some preliminary
sion Programs, January 28-31, Orlando, FL. evidence. Supply Chain Management 5 (3), 131-142.
Duffy, P.A., Taylor, C.R., 1993. Long-term planning on a corn-soybean Huang, Sophia W., 2004. Global Trade Patterns in Fruits and Vegetables,
farm: A dynamic programming analysis. Agricultural Systems 42, 57-71. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture and Trade
Ekman, S., 2000. Tillage system selection: A mathematical programming Report No. WRS-04-06.
model incorporating weather variability. Journal of Agricultural Itoh, T., Hiroaki, I., Teruaki, N., 2003. A model of crop planning under
Engineering Research 77 (3), 267-276. uncertainty in agricultural management. International Journal of
El-Nazer, T., McCarl, B.A., 1986. The choice of crop rotation: A Production Economics 81-82, 555-558.
modeling approach and case study. American Journal of Agricultural Jiao, Z., Higgins, A.J., Prestwidge, D.B., 2005. An integrated statistical
Economics, 127-136. and optimization approach to increasing sugar production within a
Epperson, J.E., Estes, E.A., 1999. Fruit and vegetable supply-chain mill region. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 48, 170-181.
management, innovations, and competitiveness: Cooperative Regional Jones, P.C., Lowe, T.J., Traub, R., 2001. Matching supply and demand:
Research Project S-222. Journal of Food Distribution 30, 38-43. The value of a second chance in producing seed corn. Review of
Fleischmann, B., Meyr, H., Wagner, M., 2005. Advanced planning. In: Agricultural Economics 24 (1), 222-238.
Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning: Concepts Mod- Jones, P.C., Lowe, T.J., Traub, R., 2003. Managing the seed-corn supply
els, Software and Case Studies. Springer, Berlin, Germany (Chapter 4). chain at Sygenta. Interfaces 33 (1), 80-90.
Ferrer, J.C., MacCawley, A., Maturana, S., Toloza, S., Vera, J., 2008. An Kader, A.A. (Eds.), 2001. Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops,
optimization approach for scheduling wine grape harvest operations. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural
International Journal of Production Economics 112 (2), 985-999. Resources, Publication 3311, pp. 5-30.
Glen, J.J., 1986. A linear programming model for an integrated crop and Kaiser, H.M., Apland, J., 1989. DSSP: A model of production and
intensive beef production enterprise. Journal of the Operational marketing decisions on a Midwestern crop farm. North Central
Research Society 37 (5), 487-494. Journal of Agricultural Economics 11 (1), 105-115.
Glen, J.J., 1987. Mathematical-models in farm-planning - a survey. Kaiser, H.M., Riha, S.J., Wilks, D.S., Rossiter, D.G., Sampath, R., 1993.
Operations Research 35 (5), 641-666. A farm-level analysis of economic and agronomic impacts of gradual
Glen, J.J., Tipper, R., 2001. A mathematical programming model for climate warming. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75,
improvement planning in a semi-subsistence farm. Agricultural 387-398.
Systems 70, 295-317. Kaufman, P., Handy, C., McLaughlin, E.W., Park, K., Green, G.M.,
Gigler, J.K., Hendrix, E.M.T., Heesen, R.A., van den Hazelkamp, 2000. Understanding the dynamics of produce markets: Consumption
V.G.W., Meerdink, G., 2002. On optimization of agri chains by and consolidation grow. US Department of Agriculture-Economic
dynamic programming. European Journal of Operational Research Research Service, Market and Trade Economics Division, Agricultural
139,613-625. Information Bulletin No. 758, August.
Goetschalckx, M., Vidal, C.J., Dogan, K., 2002. modeling and design of Kazaz, B., 2004. Production planning under yield and demand uncertainty
global logistics systems: A review of integrated strategic and tactical with yield-dependent cost and price. Manufacturing & Service Oper-
models and design algorithms. European Journal of Operational ations Management 6 (3), 209-224.
Research 143, 1-18. Kinsey, J.D., 2001. The new food economy: Consumers, farms, pharms
Goyal, S.K., Giri, B.C., 2001. Recent trends in modeling of deteriorating and science. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83 (5),
inventory. European Journal Of Operational Research 134 (1), 1-16. 1113-1130.
Hamer, P.J.C., 1994. A decision support system for the provision of Kobzar, O.A., van Asseldonk, M.A.P.M., Huirne, R.B.M., 2005. Whole-
planting plans for Brussels sprouts. Computers and Electronics in farm planning under risk: Application of alternative risk programming
Agriculture 11, 97-115. techniques to support portfolio-decisions in Dutch agriculture. In:
Hardaker, J., Pendey, S., Patten, L., 1991. Farm planning under Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference, University of
uncertainty: A review of alternative programming models. Review of Nottingham, England.
Marketing and Agricultural Economics 59 (1), 9-22.
O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20 19
Raju, K.S., Kumar, D.N., 1999. Multicriterion decision-making in
Kouvelis, P., Chambers, C., Wang, H., 2006. Supply chain management irrigation planning. Agricultural Systems 62, 117-129.
research and production and operations management: Review, trends, Rantala, J., 2004. Optimizing the supply chain strategy of a multi-unit
and opportunities. Production and Operations Management 15 (3), finish nursery. Silva Fennica 38 (2), 203-215.
449-469. Reardon, T., Barret, C.B., 2000. Agroindustrialization, globalization, and
Lambert, D.K., McCarl, B.A., 1989. Sequential modeling of white wheat international development: An overview of issues, patterns, and
marketing strategies. North Central Journal of Agricultural Econom- determinants. Agricultural Economics 23, 195-205.
ics 11 (2), 157-169. Recio, B., Rubio, F., Criado, J.A., 2003. A decision support system for
Lazzari, M., Mazzetto, F., 1996. A PC model for selecting multicropping farm planning using AgriSupport II. Decision Support Systems 36 (2),
farm machinery system. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 14, 189-203.
43-59. Romero, C., 2000. Risk programming for agricultural resource allocation.
Leutscher, K.J., Renkema, J.A., Challa, H., 1999. Modeling operational Annals of Operation Research 94, 57-68.
adaptations of tactical production plans on pot plan nurseries: A Saedt, A.P.H., Hendriks, T.H.B., Smits, F.M., 1991. A transition planning
simulation approach. Agricultural Systems 59, 67-78. method applied in a decision support system for pot-plant nurseries.
Lien, G., Hardaker, J.B., 2001. Whole farm planning under uncertainty: European Journal of Operations Research 52, 142-154.
Impacts of subsidy scheme and utility function on portfolio choice in Salin, V., 1998. Information technology in agri-food supply chains.
Norwegian agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1 (3), 329-
28 (1),17-36. 334.
Lowe, T.J., Preckel, P.V., 2004. Decision technologies for agribusiness Sarmiento, A.M., Nagi, R., 1999. A review of integrated analysis
problems: A brief review of selected literature and a call for research. of production-distribution systems. IIE Transactions 31, 1061-
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 6 (3), 201-208. 1074.
Lucas, M.T., Chhajed, D., 2004. Applications of location analysis in Schilizzi, S.G.M., Kingwell, R.S., 1999. Effects of climatic and price
agriculture: A survey. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55, uncertainty on the value of legume crops in a Mediterranean-type
561-578. environment. Agricultural Systems 60, 55-69.
Maatman, A., Schweigman, C., Ruijs, A., van der Vlerk, M.H., 2002. Schepers, H., van Kooten, O., 2006. Profitability of ready-to-eat
Modeling farmers response to uncertain rain fall in Burkina Faso: A strategies: Towards model assisted negotiation in a fresh-produce
stochastic programming approach. Operations Research 50 (3), 399- chain. In: Quantifying the Agri-Food Supply Chain. Springer, Neth-
414. erlands (Chapter 9).
MacDonald, J., Perry, J., Ahearn, M., Banker, D., Chambers, W., Simchi-Levi, D., 2003. Designing and Managing the Supply Chain:
Dimitri, C., Key, N., Nelson, K., Southard, L., 2004. Contracts, Concepts, Strategies, and Case Studies. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Markets, and Prices: Organizing the Production and Use of Agricul- Stadler, H., 2005. Supply chain management and advanced planning-
tural Commodities, United States. Department of Agriculture, Eco- basics, overview and challenges. European Journal of Operational
nomic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 837. Research 163, 575-588.
Marcelis, L.F.M., Heuvelink, E., Goudriaan, J., 1998. Modelling biomass Stadler, H., Kilger, C., 2005. Supply Chain Management and Advanced
production and yield of horticultural crops: A review. Scientia Planning: Concepts Models, Software and Case Studies. Springer,
Horticultusrae 74, 83-111. Berlin, Germany.
McCarl, B.A., Nuthall, P., 1982. Linear-programming for repeated use in Stoecker, A.L., Seidmann, A., Lloyd, G.S., 1985. A linear dynamic
the analysis of agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 8 (1), 17-39. programming approach to irrigation system management with deplet-
McLaughlin, E.W., Green, G.M., Park, K., 1999. Changing Distribution ing groundwater. Management Science 31 (4), 422.
Patterns in the US Fresh Produce Industry: Mid/Late-70s to Mid/ Stokes, J., Mjelde, J., Hall, C., 1997. Optimal marketing of nursery crops
Late-90s, Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial from container-based production systems. American Journal of
Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, June. Agricultural Economics 79, 235-245.
Meixell, M.J., Gargeya, V.B., 2005. Global supply chain design: A Sumanatra, J., Ramirez, J.A., 1997. Optimal stochastic multi-crop
literature review and critique. Transportation Research Part E 41, 531- seasonal and intraseasonal irrigation control. Journal of Water
550. Resources Planning and Management 123 (1), 39-48.
Miller, W.A., Leung, L.C., Azhar, T.M., Sargent, S., 1997. Production Tan, L.P., Fong, C.O., 1988. Determination of the crop mix of a rubber
planning for fresh tomato packing. International Journal of Produc- and oil palm plantation - a programming approach. European Journal
tion Economics 53, 227-238. of Operations Research 34, 362-371.
Min, H., Zhou, G., 2002. Supply chain modeling: Past, present and future. Taylor, C.R. (Ed.), 1993. Applications of Dynamic Programming to
Computers & Industrial Engineering 43, 231-249. Agricultural Decision Problems. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Nanseki, T., Morooka, Y., 1991. Risk preference and optimal crop Thomas, D.J., Griffin, P.M., 1996. Coordinated supply chain manage-
combinations in upland Java, Indonesia: An application of stochastic ment. European Journal of Operations Research 94, 1-15.
programming. Agricultural Economics 5, 39-58. Tijskens, L.M.M., Polderdijk, J.J., 1996. A generic model for keeping
Nevo, A., Oad, R., Podmore, T., 1994. An integrated expert system for quality of vegetable produce during storage and distribution. Agricul-
optimal crop planning. Agricultural Systems 45, 73-92. tural Systems 51 (4), 431-452.
Perosio, D.J., McLaughlin, E.W., Cuellar, S., Park, K., 2001. Supply Torkamani, J., Hardaker, J.B., 1996. A study of economic efficiency of
chain management in the produce industry. Produce Marketing Iranian farmers in Ramjerd district: An application of stochastic
Association, Newark, Delaware, 22-32. programming. Agricultural Economics 14, 73-83.
Perry, G.M., McCarl, B.A., Rister, M.E., Richardson, J.W., 1989. Torkamani, J., 2005. Using whole-farm modeling approach to assess
Modeling government program participation decisions at the farm prospective technologies under uncertainty. Agricultural Systems, 138-
level. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71 (4), 1011-1020. 154.
Porteus, E.L., 1993a. Case analysis: Analyses of the national cranberry Turvey, C.G., Driver, H.C., Baker, T.G., 1988. Systematic and nonsys-
cooperative - 1. Tactical options. Interfaces 23 (4), 21-39. tematic risk in farm portfolio selection. American Journal Agricultural
Porteus, E.L., 1993b. Case analysis: Analyses of the national cranberry Economics 70 (4), 831-835.
cooperative - 2. Environmental changes and implementation. Inter- Turvey, C.G., Baker, T.G., 1990. A farm-level financial analysis
faces 23 (6), 81-92. of farmers use of futures and options under alternative
Purcell, D.L., Turner, S.C., Houston, J., Hall, C., 1993. A portfolio farm programs. American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
approach to landscape plant production and marketing. Journal of 946-957.
Agriculture and Applied Economics 25 (2), 13-26.
20 O. Ahumada, J.R. Villalobos / European Journal of Operational Research 195 (2009) 1-20
Vidal, C.J., Goetschalckx, M., 1997. Strategic production-distribution
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2007. Fruits and models: A critical review with emphasis on global supply chain models.
Vegetables (farm weight): Per Capita Availability, 1970-2005, European Journal of Operational Research 98, 1-18.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/spreadsheets/fruitveg. Visagie, S.E., de Kock, H.C., Ghebretsadik, A.H., 2004. Optimising an
xls. integrated crop-livestock farm using risk programming. Operations
van Berlo, M. Jules, 1993. A decision support tool for the vegetable Research Society of South Africa 20 (1), 29-54.
processing industry; an integrative approach of market, industry and Vitoriano, B., Ortuno, M.T., Recio, B., Rubio, F., Alonso-Ayuso, A.,
agriculture. Agricultural Systems 43, 91-109. 2003. Two alternative models for farm management: Discrete versus
van der Vorst, J.G.A.J., 2006. Product traceability in food-supply chains. continuous time horizon. European Journal of Operational Research
Acreditation and Quality Assurance 11, 33-37. 114,613-628.
van Ittersum, M.K., Leffelaar, P.A., van Keulen, H., Kropff, M.J., Widodo, K.H., Nagasawa, H., Morizawa, K., Ota, M., 2006. A periodical
Bastiaans, L., Goudriaan, J., 2003. On approaches and applications of flowering-harvesting model for delivering agricultural fresh products.
the Wageningen crop models. European Journal of Agronomy 18, European Journal of Operational Research 170, 24-43.
201-234.